I saw some people complaining about that article earlier this week. But I couldn't figure out what they thought was wrong with it ... Do you have any thoughts on it pro or con?
-
-
-
I’m still reading it but the main points seem right
-
I’ll write a detailed reply in the next few days (traveling right now) but this is...not good.
-
Looking forward to seeing your reply! I edit the Journal of Medical Ethics blog - let me know if you'd like me to consider it for publication there
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They are just less biased than any other method.
-
A saying about democracy comes to mind.
-
I guess I said the right thing. You had fun writing that, didn't you?
@VinayPrasadMD Don't miss the last paragraph. -
I wrote it out of frustration but I was glad it seemed to resonate w a lot of people
-
I just wish you'd whisper a few names in a few ears.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Stephen Senn would have a thing or two to say about this.
-
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
yes, science is based on implicit and explicit bias and randomness is hard to achieve and perhaps pointless anyway even if it could be achieved because human beings need personalised and very non-random approaches!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Can you DM me in my open DMs? I have two very specific bioethics questions I desperately need to ask you about.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.